The process by which academics check the work of their colleagues before it goes to print—peer review—is nearly as old as scientific publishing itself. But like every human     1    , it is full of human failing and the process can be     2    in a variety of ways.     3    , and as with many other aspects of publishing, peer review is the     4    of much experimentation.
    Peer review’s current practice took     5    in the middle of the 20th century: authors submit a     6    to a publisher, who then seeks out academics suitable to     7    on it; they then submit critiques anonymously to the authors, who     8    the work to reflect the critiques. The system nearly     9    . The reasons for anonymity are varied, but that information asymmetry often causes trouble, with reviewers shooting     10    rival’s work, stealing ideas, or just plain     11    their feet.
    There are a few green shoots of     12    in the field, though. One idea is to remove the     13    and carry out peer review publicly. Faculty of 1000, an online biology and medicine publisher, has taken this     14    with F1000 Research, its flagship journal.
        15    it is taking the idea further. Michael Markie, an associate publisher for F1000 Research, believes that a     16    to change must also come from authors and reviewers. Mr. Markie     17    a kind of oath and a set of guidelines to encourage even-handed and helpful behaviours for reviewers.
    All of this may sound a bit     18    . But the truth is that there is no peer-review training. Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science, is concerned that some publishers     19    assume that reviewers are aware of an appropriate     20    of conduct. That is not the case, which is why the simple-sounding oath is better than no guidance at all.